Hey, long time no see. Not sure where exactly to post this, here or in Philosophy, but I'll let the mods worry about that.

I guess I'll start by clarifying that I support the core objectives of the movement: Reform in use of excessive force by the police, rooting out the racist members of the judicial system (police, judges, etc.), and holding offending parties accountable for their actions. The BLM movement is justified in its existence, but I feel like the lack of organized leadership inherent in an ideological hashtag movement negates the effectiveness it can ultimately have. On one hand, you have many protests going well without instance, and most people seem to be on the same page, but on the other you have individuals killing people while flying the same banner, with other followers praising their actions.

It's almost akin to Islam at this point: The vast majority are moderate and peaceful, but a few evil individuals acting in their name are hurting the cause, bringing hate upon the group as a whole. Their opponents are going to latch on to every instance of some rogue individual slaying police officers while waving the BLM flag with the masses cheering them on as an example of what they're really all about. It's detrimental to the cause, and to fully buffer themselves from any future incidents of violence, a new platform needs to be built to filter out those that aren't acting in the movement's best interests.

This goes beyond the violent radicals, though, and has a lot to do with their peaceful tactics as well. One of the common methods of protest I've been seeing lately is a group of people will block traffic on a major highway and trap people there for hours at a time. This sounds like a good idea, because you're broadcasting your message to the public in a way that's hard to ignore, but there are a few major problems I see. First, this affects emergency services such as fire and EMS, and there have been a few cases where it's been an issue. There was a child that needed to get to the hospital stuck in traffic, and paramedics almost couldn't get there because of the protesters. Another time they intentionally and repeatedly blocked an ambulance from getting through an intersection. This movement is supposed to be based on the value of life, yet they're willfully risking those of innocent bystanders, and that is something I cannot tolerate. I used to work in EMS, so maybe I've got an emotional bias, but whenever I hear about stuff like this happening I'm furious, and I don't see how anyone couldn't be.

The second problem with this form of protest is that it's just not that effective in earning new followers, and more suited for awareness of smaller campaigns. All you're doing when you hold up traffic is pissing everybody off, and if anything I think it nets a loss in support. Plus, everybody is aware of BLM and why they exist, so attention seeking events like this aren't moving things forward. It's simply making a fuss for the sake of making a fuss, and does nothing for the cause.

I realize, again, that all of this probably does not reflect the mentality of most people rallying under BLM, but that's kind of the problem, and it shows me that without proper leadership BLM basically a large mob with only one specific thing in common. Anybody can organize a protest, anybody can join in, and anybody can act in the name of BLM, so what's to stop any of this, or worse, from happening again? Without a central figure to condemn certain actions and organize more intelligent POAs, then I believe that the movement will stagnate, at best, and at worst fall apart over internal conflict.

I'm not saying #BlackLivesMatter should cease to exist, it deserves to exist and couldn't be stopped anyway, but I think it's reached its limit on being an effective platform, and is starting to turn in the other direction. It's an ideology, a loose one at that, and I simply don't think it's up to the task of carrying this out solo. What I'm saying is another group, or groups, need to rise out from the ranks of the mob and put some thought into their efforts. Instead of holding up traffic on an arbitrary highway, why not occupy the Capitol building? Perhaps once Obama leaves office he can become a vocal figurehead, outline what is and isn't in the best interest of the movement, and publicly condemn anything that falls out of line with their philosophy. If there's anybody in the US that can effectively rally this cause, I believe it's him.

I may be wrong, there could be an easier solution that keeps the movement unified (and that's the only hesitation I have on all of this, that we'll get a million different groups all fighting each other), but the gist is that, as far as I can tell, the group is too divided and unorganized as it is to effectively instill the changes we want from society, and a clearer message needs to be formulated. Thanks for hearing me out, let me know what you think.

P.S. - Because I'm sure somebody will ask: I am white, however not all of my family is. I have a branch in my family tree that's mostly Mexican, and another that's partially African American. Mexican family lives in Arizona, right on the freaking border, so they deal with immigration racists. Black family lives in North Charleston, SC, and there we have the classic flavor of racism. One of the police shootings last year happened blocks from where my one cousin lives, and I constantly worry about something happening to one of them. So yeah, I'm a white guy, but I think I understand and care a little more about all this than people would assume, so I'm putting it out there.

"I'm not stupid, I just have a command of thoroughly useless information." Watterson

All human lives matter equally, but there has historically been some resistance to that idea, hence the disparity that leads some portions of the population to have to actively state that their lives matter, because it isn't clear that everybody knows that, including some people in positions of authority, with weapons.

This would be the same type of criticism I have of Black Lives Matter, the lack of a central leadership. There are leaders of the movement, but they do not always seem to be in control of everything going on. This might just be because it is hard to control a large group of people during a protest. Besides that, there is no real test for someone shouting "Black Lives Matter!" Anyone can print out a sign and do that, even when they stand against the vast majority of what Black Lives Matter stands for.

The leaders of Black Lives Matter have come out and condemned both acts of terrorism in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Now if only police departments would start condemning officers that shoot people who are not a threat.

About your criticism of blocking traffic, that is what a protest is supposed to be. They are supposed to disrupt a community to draw attention. If laws could be changed without protests, than streets would not have to be blocked. It is a callous thing to say, but it is amazing that people will bring up how EMTs almost could not help a child; yet when a office shoots a child, people right away defend them and say how the child somehow deserved it. However, I do agree that protests at state capitals, police departments, or the White House it self look like far better options than just random highways.

Back to that leadership, about a month ago, Obama actually asked one of the leaders to meat with him so they could discuss solutions. She refused. I honestly lost tons of respect for the movement in that moment. The whole point of your movement is to get laws changed, yet you do not want to meet with the person that has the most power to change laws? It blew my mind.

Besides that, in general it seems that in the U.S. the "Left" is against central leadership. I feel that is the main reason why Occupy Wall Street was a bust. Without goals and a person that is able to talk on your behalf, what are you doing? On that same note, if someone is able to talk on your behalf and they refuse, what are they doing?

This is the whole point of BLM. White lives as a general rule matter by default simply by virtue of them being white.

When black people are given harsher punnishments than white kids at school for the same actions, thus affecting their education and prospects, which leads to a life of poverty. Black people are given harsher punnishments for crimes and are stopped by police far more often. Oh and they get shot by police for no reason more often than white folks.

What BLM is saying is that black lives should matter the same as white lives do by default.

Didn't know about BLM refusing to speak with Obama, that's kind of... yeah, mind blowing. Sort of adds to my frustration, even with leadership they seem to not have their priorities straight. Was there a reason for that, or was it more like a stubborn refusal on the grounds of some arbitrary principle?

I understand that shutting down roads and causing a ruckus is par for the course with any protest, but I feel like this movement is beyond that. It's the biggest platform for social justice in the US right now, and things like that are usually best for raising awareness. Piss people off so they have to pay attention to you. But we're all paying attention, so the name of the game at this point would be putting pressure on the government. I can see the lack of action being taken as a reason to go back to the "make them hear us!" events, so perhaps moves like that are still necessary.

And I appreciate the discussion, I live in Pennsylvania, where the political values are hard to predict (I like to refer to it as a purple state), and as far as BLM is concerned most people I know are behind it. Seems this board is as blue as ever. But yeah, thanks, good to know I'm not speaking entirely out of my un-informed ass

"I'm not stupid, I just have a command of thoroughly useless information." Watterson

Lallapalalable wrote:Didn't know about BLM refusing to speak with Obama, that's kind of... yeah, mind blowing. Sort of adds to my frustration, even with leadership they seem to not have their priorities straight. Was there a reason for that, or was it more like a stubborn refusal on the grounds of some arbitrary principle?

From what I could gather, it was some arbitrary principle malarkey. With the stroke of Obama's pen, he can make body cameras mandatory for all precincts or that any officer that shoots a civilian should stand trial (just on the principle that the state is executing people without a trial). Why anyone would refuse that opportunity is beyond me.

From this, I gather that she believed the invitation wasn't as serious as it sounded, and backed out because it seemed more like a PR moment than a productive meeting. Which I can understad; it would only fall into the cycle of "acknowledgement = action" and ground would be lost in getting the leaders of this country off their asses and doing something. Refusing the invitation shows them that you're not interested in soft-ball efforts, and could very well have actually been a good move on her part.

On the other hand, while it may have been just that, a PR move, it was an excellent opportunity to arrange a more formal sit-down. She could have attended, let Obama and staff smile for the cameras, perhaps even get a few words of her own out there, and set something up in person with the freaking president of the country she's trying to influence, one who's more likely to do something that actually benefits your cause than any other ever would have (and I don't see either of our nominees for the next four years willing to be as proactive), and progress would have been made. Not saying it would have ended the whole issue, but it could have been a major step forward. Or, if she failed in getting what she was looking for, could have made a huge deal about it, put more pressure on the government. Instead, she kamikaze'd and decided nobody was going to play anything today.

In the end, yeah, I think it was a missed opportunity, but this could motivate Obama, or anyone else really, to treat the matter a bit more seriously.

Edit: In lighter news, Baltimore is doing something. New policies will allow officers to intervene when fellow cops look like they're crossing the line. Nothing about not penalties for not stepping in, but it at least brings down one of the many barriers this whole struggle is facing, and that's the fear of repercussions for officers that want to turn in bad cops. It's a tiny step, and one that could be in the wrong direction, but a step nonetheless.

I fundamentally disagree with Aislinn Pulley on this issue. I think you summed it up perfectly in your second paragraph. One has to remember that Black Lives Matter is PR. Pulley turned away from something that is the "first-of-its-kind" intergenerational meeting to discuss "a range of issues, including the administration's efforts on criminal justice reform" and "building trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve", which is asinine. It will just make more people start to question what is the point of Black Lives Matter if they are refusing to meet with leaders over issues they are raising. Even with video of police officer's killing or injuring non-threatening black people, protests had to take place in order for people to start taking this issue seriously. This was an up hill battle already, yet you get the ear of people that can start to change that, and you refuse to meet with them? Honestly, how does that help your goals in anyway?

hackenslash wrote:All human lives matter equally, but there has historically been some resistance to that idea, hence the disparity that leads some portions of the population to have to actively state that their lives matter, because it isn't clear that everybody knows that, including some people in positions of authority, with weapons.

Actually studies indicate white people are more likely than blacks to be shot by police officers where no threat or attack is involved. This is why the rest of the world is moving on.

“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy

hackenslash wrote:All human lives matter equally, but there has historically been some resistance to that idea, hence the disparity that leads some portions of the population to have to actively state that their lives matter, because it isn't clear that everybody knows that, including some people in positions of authority, with weapons.

Actually studies indicate white people are more likely than blacks to be shot by police officers where no threat or attack is involved. This is why the rest of the world is moving on.

Care to actually cite these studies?

Kindest regards,

James

"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."The Age Of Reason

I see a major flaw in that research, namely the sources. Given that Texas and Florida have larger than average Hispanic communities, the study is going to be weighted toward the conclusion that Hispanics have statistically higher involvement. LA also has a large Hispanic community.

That's a really poor study, and an economics journal is hardly the place.

hackenslash wrote:I see a major flaw in that research, namely the sources. Given that Texas and Florida have larger than average Hispanic communities, the study is going to be weighted toward the conclusion that Hispanics have statistically higher involvement. LA also has a large Hispanic community.

That's a really poor study, and an economics journal is hardly the place.

I remain sceptical.

Even taking that paper at face value, it concludes that blacks and Hispanics are more likely to experience force than others. That is still a problem. I also feel our resident troll does not understand what the Black Lives Matter movement is about, especially if they conclude that since white people die more from police offices, that makes everything okay.